"The character of ministry is not measured by how many follow this minister but by how many follow Jesus." ~ Adam Powers
Adam is a seminary classmate of mine and also a fellow intern at St. Paul's Presbyterian Church. Today he preached a great sermon in our second service on John 3:22-36 which you can listen to here (I would highly recommend it). The above quote is my favorite from his whole sermon. He was focusing on how John the Baptist shows us we will have true joy when Jesus increases and we decrease. Ministries, pastors, authors, etc. are all great things but they are not measured by how many people follow them but by how many people follow Jesus because of the impact of their ministry. John the Baptist's joy was made complete when he saw people going to Jesus (not to him). This was his joy because that is what his ministry was all about, pointing to Jesus.
It reminds me of what the first question of the Westminster Short Catechism says: "What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." There is one end, singular, but two things are intimately bound up in it: glorifying God and enjoying Him. We cannot have one without the other. Pointing to Jesus will be our greatest joy. When we glorify Him we, like John the Baptist, will find our joy complete.
By His Grace,
Taylor
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Four Spiritual Laws (According to Steve Brown)
"...You know people like that: arrogant, elitist, demanding? You don't do that if you know the four spiritual laws. Let me give them to you. Law number one: there's a sovereign God. Law number two: you're not Him. Law number three: He doesn't need you. Law number four: go get a milkshake." ~ Steve Brown
I love how Steve has a way of breaking things down like this. When we think too much of ourselves in reference to the world and God's work in it we start to get off track, put too much pressure on ourselves, and/or become arrogant. I know I do this at times and it is always nice to be reminded that God was doing just fine before I came along and will do just fine after I am gone. Anything done through me is a blessing of His sovereign grace. Keeping that in mind relieves some of the pressure and keeps my ego in check.
By His Grace,
Taylor
I love how Steve has a way of breaking things down like this. When we think too much of ourselves in reference to the world and God's work in it we start to get off track, put too much pressure on ourselves, and/or become arrogant. I know I do this at times and it is always nice to be reminded that God was doing just fine before I came along and will do just fine after I am gone. Anything done through me is a blessing of His sovereign grace. Keeping that in mind relieves some of the pressure and keeps my ego in check.
By His Grace,
Taylor
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Little People, Big Universe, Even Bigger God
"That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives... lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam." ~ Carl Sagan
In a couple of past posts (here and here) I showed some images of our universe that demonstrated just how small Earth is in the grand scheme of the universe. The American Museum of Natural History has created a video that starts at the top of the world (Everest) and moves out to the farthest observed edge of our universe. It is a great example of just how small Earth is (and, by extension, you and I).
The universe is 156 billion light-years across! Makes me feel kind of small when I think about it. Fortunately, God holds all this in His hand and He likes me a lot.
By His Grace,
Taylor
In a couple of past posts (here and here) I showed some images of our universe that demonstrated just how small Earth is in the grand scheme of the universe. The American Museum of Natural History has created a video that starts at the top of the world (Everest) and moves out to the farthest observed edge of our universe. It is a great example of just how small Earth is (and, by extension, you and I).
The universe is 156 billion light-years across! Makes me feel kind of small when I think about it. Fortunately, God holds all this in His hand and He likes me a lot.
By His Grace,
Taylor
Monday, September 6, 2010
Hawking's God
"But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions." Dr. John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writing for Mail Online
Recently Stephen Hawking, while promoting his new (yet-to-be-published) book The Grand Design, has made a few highly controversial statements. In an interview Hawking stated, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going." Dr. Lennox responded to Hawking's statement in an article for Mail Online where he says what I have quoted above. I wanted to write about this because I both agree and disagree with Dr. Lennox. I agree with him in that physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe and that laws, of course, do not create anything. In his article, Dr. Lennox goes onto say, "What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine." This is where I disagree with him. I do not think that Hawking is confusing law with agency but attributing agency to the laws of physics, replacing a personal God with impersonal laws.
Many years ago in A Brief History of Time (BHT) Hawking stated, "If we discover a complete theory it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason for then we would know the mind of God." When Hawking wrote BHT he seemed to be your average deist who does not believe in a personal God but believes that some transcendent being is necessary for creating the laws of physics and mathematics. In his recent statements, Hawking appears to have changed his theology about God. This is what is creating all the hype about this book. But has he (this is the way Dr. Lennox interprets it) or is he now just being more explicit about who, or what, this "God" is? I believe it is the latter. I do not think that Hawking has changed his theology at all but is being much more explicit than he was in BHT. Now he is specifically stating that a personal God does not exist but that the laws of physics are "God". Look at what he says, "Because there is a law such as gravity..." (emphasis mine). He is not eliminating a need for a first cause (see the Kalam Cosmological Argument) but treating the laws of physics as a brute reality, a transcendent cause that is preexistent. To Hawking, "God" is the laws of physics.
Why is he doing this? Well, again, I believe we can see that in his statement in BHT as well as his recent statements. In BHT he says that discovering a complete theory would allow us to "know the mind of God." In his new book Hawking is proposing a way of looking at the universe where it would be possible for a human to know everything there is to know about the universe (a theory of everything (TOE)). Now we can see what is driving Hawking. If God is personal and transcendent, then the idea that we could come up with a TOE that shows us "the mind of God" is impossible. For example, science would not be able to answer the question of why the universe exists in the first place. However, if "God" is an impersonal set of physical laws that are simply a brute force of reality with no basis (a god) then a TOE is possible. Hawking is picking one cosmological and theological model over another so that it would be possible for him to have a complete theory of everything.
Hawking, like all human beings do at one point or another, has fallen prey to the original temptation of satan. How does satan tempt Eve in the Garden of Eden? "'You will not surely die,' the serpent said to the woman. 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God...'" (Genesis 3:4-5). In order to know what God knows, Eve disobeyed the one command He gave Adam and her by eating the fruit. In order to know what God knows, Hawking is taking a theological world-view, which holds that "God" is an impersonal set of physical laws that transcend the universe.
There is a very big problem with what Hawking is doing here, however. The laws of physics constantly remind all scientists that effect cannot be greater than the cause, the lesser cannot produce the greater. How can an impersonal set of laws (the lesser) produce personal beings like humans (the greater)? Why is it that humans have personality, compassion, or relationships? Hawking's TOE cannot answer this question because the impersonal cannot beget the personal. To put the problem in another way that philosopher Kenneth Samples has put it, "How is it that the universe can create beings that can understand the universe but the universe cannot understand itself?" If the universe generates us and we can understand the universe but the universe cannot understand us then we are greater than the universe. This is counter to the laws of physics. Impersonal laws (Hawking's "God") can only produce impersonal results such as planets and stars, but they cannot produce personal, compassionate, relational beings like us.
By His Grace,
Taylor
Recently Stephen Hawking, while promoting his new (yet-to-be-published) book The Grand Design, has made a few highly controversial statements. In an interview Hawking stated, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going." Dr. Lennox responded to Hawking's statement in an article for Mail Online where he says what I have quoted above. I wanted to write about this because I both agree and disagree with Dr. Lennox. I agree with him in that physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe and that laws, of course, do not create anything. In his article, Dr. Lennox goes onto say, "What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine." This is where I disagree with him. I do not think that Hawking is confusing law with agency but attributing agency to the laws of physics, replacing a personal God with impersonal laws.
Many years ago in A Brief History of Time (BHT) Hawking stated, "If we discover a complete theory it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason for then we would know the mind of God." When Hawking wrote BHT he seemed to be your average deist who does not believe in a personal God but believes that some transcendent being is necessary for creating the laws of physics and mathematics. In his recent statements, Hawking appears to have changed his theology about God. This is what is creating all the hype about this book. But has he (this is the way Dr. Lennox interprets it) or is he now just being more explicit about who, or what, this "God" is? I believe it is the latter. I do not think that Hawking has changed his theology at all but is being much more explicit than he was in BHT. Now he is specifically stating that a personal God does not exist but that the laws of physics are "God". Look at what he says, "Because there is a law such as gravity..." (emphasis mine). He is not eliminating a need for a first cause (see the Kalam Cosmological Argument) but treating the laws of physics as a brute reality, a transcendent cause that is preexistent. To Hawking, "God" is the laws of physics.
Why is he doing this? Well, again, I believe we can see that in his statement in BHT as well as his recent statements. In BHT he says that discovering a complete theory would allow us to "know the mind of God." In his new book Hawking is proposing a way of looking at the universe where it would be possible for a human to know everything there is to know about the universe (a theory of everything (TOE)). Now we can see what is driving Hawking. If God is personal and transcendent, then the idea that we could come up with a TOE that shows us "the mind of God" is impossible. For example, science would not be able to answer the question of why the universe exists in the first place. However, if "God" is an impersonal set of physical laws that are simply a brute force of reality with no basis (a god) then a TOE is possible. Hawking is picking one cosmological and theological model over another so that it would be possible for him to have a complete theory of everything.
Hawking, like all human beings do at one point or another, has fallen prey to the original temptation of satan. How does satan tempt Eve in the Garden of Eden? "'You will not surely die,' the serpent said to the woman. 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God...'" (Genesis 3:4-5). In order to know what God knows, Eve disobeyed the one command He gave Adam and her by eating the fruit. In order to know what God knows, Hawking is taking a theological world-view, which holds that "God" is an impersonal set of physical laws that transcend the universe.
There is a very big problem with what Hawking is doing here, however. The laws of physics constantly remind all scientists that effect cannot be greater than the cause, the lesser cannot produce the greater. How can an impersonal set of laws (the lesser) produce personal beings like humans (the greater)? Why is it that humans have personality, compassion, or relationships? Hawking's TOE cannot answer this question because the impersonal cannot beget the personal. To put the problem in another way that philosopher Kenneth Samples has put it, "How is it that the universe can create beings that can understand the universe but the universe cannot understand itself?" If the universe generates us and we can understand the universe but the universe cannot understand us then we are greater than the universe. This is counter to the laws of physics. Impersonal laws (Hawking's "God") can only produce impersonal results such as planets and stars, but they cannot produce personal, compassionate, relational beings like us.
By His Grace,
Taylor
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Living by Prayer
I have made a few posts in the past of prayers from The Valley of Vision. This is a really great devotional tool, probably one of my favorites. It is a large collection of Puritan prayers and poems. They were written hundreds of years ago but still bring my heart to praise before our Sovereign Lord. Today I read one called "Living by Prayer" which I really liked and thought I would share:
By His Grace,
Taylor
O God of the open ear,
Teach me to live by prayer
as well as by providence,
for myself, soul, body, children, family, church;
Give me a heart frameable to Thy will;
so might I live in prayer,
and honour Thee,
being kept from evil, known and unknown.
Help me to see the sin that accompanies all I do,
and the good I can distill from everything.
Let me know that the work of prayer is to bring
my will to Thine,
and that without this it is folly to pray;
When I try to bring Thy will to mine it is
to command Christ,
to be above Him, and wiser than He:
this is my sin and pride.
I can only succeed when I pray
according to Thy precept and promise,
and to be done with as it pleases Thee,
according to Thy sovereign will.
When Thou commandest me to pray
for pardon, peace, brokenness,
if its because Thou wilt give me the thing promised,
for Thy glory,
as well as for my good.
Help me not only to desire small things
but with holy boldness to desire great things
for Thy people, for myself,
that they and I might live to show Thy glory.
Teach me
that it is wisdom for me to pray for all I have,
out of love, willingly, not of necessity;
that I may come to Thee at any time,
to lay open my needs acceptably to Thee;
that my great sin lies in my not keeping
the savour of Thy ways;
that the remembrance of this truth is one way
to the sense of Thy presence;
that there is no wrath like the wrath of being
governed by my own lusts for my own ends.
By His Grace,
Taylor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)